The Fundamental Law Constitutional Amendment

Discussion of principles relating to God's Law, Agency, Freedom, Liberty, the US constitution, and the Proper Role of Government.

The Fundamental Law Constitutional Amendment

Postby LoveIsTruth » Fri Feb 26, 2010 9:34 am

The Fundamental Law Constitutional Amendment

      Private Property:
      Since Private Property is the foundation of all Liberty, the Fundamental Law of the Country is that Private property shall not be violated. The owner of the property can do whatever he wants with his property as long as he is not violating the property of another.

      All other laws whether Federal or State or local, pertaining to private property are hereby and henceforth abolished.

      Public Property:
      Congress shall make no law, except with regards to public property. And all such laws should be:

        a) agreed upon by the majority of citizens, and
        b) apply to all citizens equally, and
        c) must not violate the property or natural, unalienable rights of any individual.
      Public property is defined as property to which all citizens have equal claim of ownership.

      A specific public property shall be managed by the lowest level of government that can possibly do so.



This one amendment, if implemented, will end government as we know it, and establish a government based on true principles of liberty.

This would abolish hundreds of thousands of Federal, State and local laws governing private property, and replaced them with One Law!

The only question the jury will now have to answer will be: Has private property been violated, and what the appropriate reparation should be?

I think I like that! I like that a lot!

Think about what it will do, for instance, to healthcare industry. You just abolished all licensing laws pertaining to operation of private businesses. This will allow the operation of an unfettered, free market, with all those majestic free market forces brought to bear upon the health care profession. It will bring prices dramatically down, while improving quality and availability. (Think how many people in a free market will go to a doctor that does harm to his patients? Not many. Look at computer market how dramatically prices dropped and quality improved in that market, compared to health care. Why? Regulation is the difference. The less regulation and the more free market, the lower the prices and higher the quality.)

Again to accomplish anything good you have to operate from a fundamental principle of truth. My Fundamental Law amendment does exactly that. That principle is:

Private Property IS Liberty.


=============================
This amendment is part of 5. Please see here: The Fundamental Principles of Liberty
Last edited by LoveIsTruth on Sat May 18, 2013 1:36 pm, edited 31 times in total.
LoveIsTruth
captain of 1,000

User avatar
 
Posts: 3766
Joined: Fri Feb 26, 2010 9:13 am

The Fundamental Law Constitutional Amendment

Sponsor

Sponsor
 
The Mormon Chronicle

Latter-day Conservative

Postby LoveIsTruth » Fri Feb 26, 2010 11:10 am

...
Last edited by LoveIsTruth on Fri Feb 26, 2010 8:10 pm, edited 3 times in total.
LoveIsTruth
captain of 1,000

User avatar
 
Posts: 3766
Joined: Fri Feb 26, 2010 9:13 am

Re: The Fundamental Law Constitutional Amendment

Postby Like » Fri Feb 26, 2010 11:22 am

I would say taxes are violation, in my opinion.....

Good Job!!
Like
Member
 
Posts: 2439
Joined: Tue Jul 21, 2009 4:10 pm

Re: The Fundamental Law Constitutional Amendment

Postby blakwatch » Tue Mar 02, 2010 12:55 pm

Is private property the foundation of all liberty?

What is liberty?

What is private property?

What is the foundation of it all?
blakwatch
captain of 100
 
Posts: 190
Joined: Mon Feb 25, 2008 7:15 am

Re: The Fundamental Law Constitutional Amendment

Postby LoveIsTruth » Tue Mar 02, 2010 6:19 pm

blakwatch wrote:Is private property the foundation of all liberty?

What is liberty?

What is private property?

What is the foundation of it all?

"It depends on what the meaning of the word 'is' is." ;)
http://www.slate.com/id/1000162/
LoveIsTruth
captain of 1,000

User avatar
 
Posts: 3766
Joined: Fri Feb 26, 2010 9:13 am

Re: The Fundamental Law Constitutional Amendment

Postby Jason » Tue Mar 02, 2010 8:42 pm

I thought private property was happiness.....or at least the pursuit thereof....unhindered by government as long as it didn't interfere with others pursuit thereof! Equal competition...no theft, fraud, etc etc
Tares grow with the wheat for a season - your job is to not be a tare
What we do in life echoes an eternity
When it starts raining - its too late to begin building the ark

SEPIUS EXERTUS, SEMPER FIDELIS, FRATERS INFINITAS
MOLON LABE - NON TIMEBO MALA
Jason
I am a nobody!

User avatar
 
Posts: 9542
Joined: Sun Jul 05, 2009 9:34 pm

Re: The Fundamental Law Constitutional Amendment

Postby LoveIsTruth » Tue Mar 02, 2010 11:28 pm

Jason wrote:I thought private property was happiness.....or at least the pursuit thereof....unhindered by government as long as it didn't interfere with others pursuit thereof! Equal competition...no theft, fraud, etc etc

Private property is a fundamental, yet very simple concept that even a 2 year old understands. "Mine!"

That's basically the gist of it.

On a more serious note, John Lock defines private property as an extension of self ownership. (For the purposes of the world,) you own yourself, and by extension, you own your labor.

If there are things in the world previously not owned by anyone, then you can become the owner of them by mixing your labor with those previously un-owned things, and they become your property.

You can also receive property as a gift, or earn it in a contractual exchange.

If it is yours, it means you can justly exercise control over it.

To summarize:
The owner of something is either the first user of the thing (as in the case of a previously un-owned good), or the transferee of that good by means of gift, or bequest, or sale.

That's the correct theory of rights and property ownership.

In any case Private Property, in the broadest sense, is the definition of Liberty.

It means you can do whatever you want with it, as long as you do not violate the property of others. That's what Liberty is.

Liberty does not, and cannot exist in this world without private property.
That's why destruction of private property is one of the main planks of Communist manifesto, and a stated goal of Satan and his followers. That's why defense of Liberty is basically defense of Private Property rights.

Because again:

Private Property IS Liberty.


Here's a good treatment of this subject:

Tom Woods on Personal Rights and Property Ownership 1 of 3
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qissPL55nDw

Tom Woods on Personal Rights and Property Ownership 2 of 3
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VJjFTRURRoo&feature=channel

Tom Woods on Personal Rights and Property Ownership 3 of 3
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JYfPfDtSRLo&feature=channel
LoveIsTruth
captain of 1,000

User avatar
 
Posts: 3766
Joined: Fri Feb 26, 2010 9:13 am

Re: The Fundamental Law Constitutional Amendment

Postby blakwatch » Wed Mar 03, 2010 8:29 am

I don't have any problem with the concepts, definitions or examples you have given of private property or how it becomes "mine."

But I think that the concept that "Private Proprety is Liberty" or even the fundamental basis for all liberty is a real stretch.

The Native Americans had a very different view of "private property," yet they had great liberty and freedom -- they were living definitions of liberty and freedom.

In the United Order, the Law of Consecration or even the Millenium, the concept of private proprety may be very different than it is for us today. But I don't think that changes the fundamental concept of liberty.

I guess the real question is "what is liberty?"

I think it goes way beyond private property.

Private proprty is just a sliver of the whole concept of Liberty.
blakwatch
captain of 100
 
Posts: 190
Joined: Mon Feb 25, 2008 7:15 am

Re: The Fundamental Law Constitutional Amendment

Postby LoveIsTruth » Wed Mar 03, 2010 9:50 am

blakwatch wrote:I don't have any problem with the concepts, definitions or examples you have given of private property or how it becomes "mine."

But I think that the concept that "Private Proprety is Liberty" or even the fundamental basis for all liberty is a real stretch.

The Native Americans had a very different view of "private property," yet they had great liberty and freedom -- they were living definitions of liberty and freedom.

In the United Order, the Law of Consecration or even the Millenium, the concept of private proprety may be very different than it is for us today. But I don't think that changes the fundamental concept of liberty.

I guess the real question is "what is liberty?"

I think it goes way beyond private property.

Private proprty is just a sliver of the whole concept of Liberty.

Property or ownership is defined as a range of control.

Just law of ownership is this one:
The owner of something is either the first user of the thing (as in the case of a previously un-owned good), or the transferee of that good by means of gift, or bequest, or sale.

For the purposes of this world, in this world, private property (in a broad definition, that includes control over your life, labor and goods) is the definition of Liberty.

And in the eternal world, it is the same. The only control that can be eternally maintained is a just one, where you treat your neighbor as yourself. And the principle of first user, and a giver, and receiver still prevails. That's how God owns things. Read the scriptures, they say as much. This is an eternal law.
LoveIsTruth
captain of 1,000

User avatar
 
Posts: 3766
Joined: Fri Feb 26, 2010 9:13 am

Re: The Fundamental Law Constitutional Amendment

Postby ConDef » Wed Mar 03, 2010 12:19 pm

blakwatch wrote:I don't have any problem with the concepts, definitions or examples you have given of private property or how it becomes "mine."

But I think that the concept that "Private Proprety is Liberty" or even the fundamental basis for all liberty is a real stretch.

The Native Americans had a very different view of "private property," yet they had great liberty and freedom -- they were living definitions of liberty and freedom.

In the United Order, the Law of Consecration or even the Millenium, the concept of private proprety may be very different than it is for us today. But I don't think that changes the fundamental concept of liberty.

I guess the real question is "what is liberty?"

I think it goes way beyond private property.

Private proprty is just a sliver of the whole concept of Liberty.


You are correct in that liberty encompasses more then just private property. However, it forms one of the main pillars that provide us with liberty. May I direct your attention to D&C 134:2 which talks about this.

D&C wrote:We believe that no government can exist in peace, except such laws are framed and held inviolate as will secure to each individual the free exercise of conscience, the right and control of property, and the protection of life.


Thus we see that there are three elements to providing us with true liberty. Removing even ONE of those means liberty cannot remain. All three must be in place or it will never happen.
The gospel would have never been restored had the right and control of property not existed to foster the environment needed to allow Joseph Smith Jr. to study and then pray to find out which church was true.

Read the book "An Enemy Hath Done This" by Ezra Taft Benson and he concurs about private property.
D&C 58:26: For behold, it is not meet that I should command in all things; for he that is compelled in all things, the same is a slothful and not a wise servant; wherefore he receiveth no reward.
ConDef
captain of 50

User avatar
 
Posts: 85
Joined: Tue Dec 29, 2009 2:09 pm
Location: Nebraska Cornfields

Re: The Fundamental Law Constitutional Amendment

Postby LoveIsTruth » Wed Mar 03, 2010 12:44 pm

ConDef wrote:the free exercise of conscience, the right and control of property, and the protection of life.

Again, I am taking an extended view of Private Property, where your conscience, your life, and your physical possessions, are all considered as your property.
Under this definition, I guess we perfectly agree.

And you are right again, that even under a limited definition of property, liberty in this world is quite impossible without it.

This is why I said that Private Property is the foundation of all Liberty.

Thank you for your post.
LoveIsTruth
captain of 1,000

User avatar
 
Posts: 3766
Joined: Fri Feb 26, 2010 9:13 am

Re: The Fundamental Law Constitutional Amendment

Postby blakwatch » Wed Mar 03, 2010 2:41 pm

My definition of liberty is essentially the same as agency -- Freedom of Choice.

As far as I am concerned, they could be used almost interchangeably.

But the way you're describing it, instead of saying "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and Pursuit of Happiness" (usually interpreted to mean property), we could just say "that among these are Life and Property," and use of the word "property" would fully cover the concept of "liberty."

Do you know why the word "property" wasn't used in this phrase of the Declaration of Independence?
blakwatch
captain of 100
 
Posts: 190
Joined: Mon Feb 25, 2008 7:15 am

Re: The Fundamental Law Constitutional Amendment

Postby LoveIsTruth » Wed Mar 03, 2010 3:21 pm

blakwatch wrote:My definition of liberty is essentially the same as agency -- Freedom of Choice.

As far as I am concerned, they could be used almost interchangeably.

But the way you're describing it, instead of saying "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and Pursuit of Happiness" (usually interpreted to mean property), we could just say "that among these are Life and Property," and use of the word "property" would fully cover the concept of "liberty."

Do you know why the word "property" wasn't used in this phrase of the Declaration of Independence?

I see your point. I guess the word "Liberty" is a shorthand for saying "The right to earn and possess Private Property, including yourself, your conscience, your talents, your thoughts, your ideas, your body, your labor and the fruits of your labors, your ability to choose, your destiny, and to do with these things as you please, as long as you are not violating the property of others." In my view it is all Private Property, and it is equivalent to Liberty and to Pursuit of Happiness.

I think it would've been better if they mentioned "the right to earn and keep private property."
LoveIsTruth
captain of 1,000

User avatar
 
Posts: 3766
Joined: Fri Feb 26, 2010 9:13 am

Re: The Fundamental Law Constitutional Amendment

Postby Jason » Wed Mar 03, 2010 3:32 pm

LoveIsTruth wrote:
Jason wrote:I thought private property was happiness.....or at least the pursuit thereof....unhindered by government as long as it didn't interfere with others pursuit thereof! Equal competition...no theft, fraud, etc etc

Private property is a fundamental, yet very simple concept that even a 2 year old understands. "Mine!"

That's basically the gist of it.

On a more serious note, John Lock defines private property as an extension of self ownership. (For the purposes of the world,) you own yourself, and by extension, you own your labor.

If there are things in the world previously not owned by anyone, then you can become the owner of them by mixing your labor with those previously un-owned things, and they become your property.

You can also receive property as a gift, or earn it in a contractual exchange.

If it is yours, it means you can justly exercise control over it.

To summarize:
The owner of something is either the first user of the thing (as in the case of a previously un-owned good), or the transferee of that good by means of gift, or bequest, or sale.

That's the correct theory of rights and property ownership.

In any case Private Property, in the broadest sense, is the definition of Liberty.

It means you can do whatever you want with it, as long as you do not violate the property of others. That's what Liberty is.

Liberty does not, and cannot exist in this world without private property.
That's why destruction of private property is one of the main planks of Communist manifesto, and a stated goal of Satan and his followers. That's why defense of Liberty is basically defense of Private Property rights.

Because again:

Private Property IS Liberty.


Here's a good treatment of this subject:

Tom Woods on Personal Rights and Property Ownership 1 of 3
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qissPL55nDw

Tom Woods on Personal Rights and Property Ownership 2 of 3
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VJjFTRURRoo&feature=channel

Tom Woods on Personal Rights and Property Ownership 3 of 3
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JYfPfDtSRLo&feature=channel


So is it worth fighting over?
Tares grow with the wheat for a season - your job is to not be a tare
What we do in life echoes an eternity
When it starts raining - its too late to begin building the ark

SEPIUS EXERTUS, SEMPER FIDELIS, FRATERS INFINITAS
MOLON LABE - NON TIMEBO MALA
Jason
I am a nobody!

User avatar
 
Posts: 9542
Joined: Sun Jul 05, 2009 9:34 pm

Re: The Fundamental Law Constitutional Amendment

Postby LoveIsTruth » Wed Mar 03, 2010 3:44 pm

Who is fighting? We are just peacefully, amicably and cordially exchanging ideas. :D Thank you so much for yours! Good input!
LoveIsTruth
captain of 1,000

User avatar
 
Posts: 3766
Joined: Fri Feb 26, 2010 9:13 am

Re: The Fundamental Law Constitutional Amendment

Postby Jason » Wed Mar 03, 2010 3:45 pm

LoveIsTruth wrote:Who is fighting? We are just peacefully, amicably and cordially exchanging ideas. :D Thank you so much for yours! Good input!



Nah....IS IT WORTH FIGHTING OVER? At what point do you pick up your gun and claim your rights?
Tares grow with the wheat for a season - your job is to not be a tare
What we do in life echoes an eternity
When it starts raining - its too late to begin building the ark

SEPIUS EXERTUS, SEMPER FIDELIS, FRATERS INFINITAS
MOLON LABE - NON TIMEBO MALA
Jason
I am a nobody!

User avatar
 
Posts: 9542
Joined: Sun Jul 05, 2009 9:34 pm

Re: The Fundamental Law Constitutional Amendment

Postby LoveIsTruth » Wed Mar 03, 2010 3:59 pm

You do that when all other avenues of action are closed, and not until then.

This Amendment, if passed, will go a long way in restoring liberty in this country. It will be an amazing boon to the economy for sure! Just imagine, repealing all laws, licensing and regulations of private property, but one. It would be awesome! It would be amazing! It would be liberating, and conducive of such economic growth and prosperity as this country have never seen before!
LoveIsTruth
captain of 1,000

User avatar
 
Posts: 3766
Joined: Fri Feb 26, 2010 9:13 am

Re: The Fundamental Law Constitutional Amendment

Postby Jason » Wed Mar 03, 2010 4:03 pm

LoveIsTruth wrote:You do that when all other avenues of action are closed, and not until then.

This Amendment, if passed, will go a long way in restoring liberty in this country. It will be an amazing boon to the economy for sure! Just imagine, repealing all laws, licensing and regulations of private property, but one. It would be awesome! It would be amazing! It would be liberating, and conducive of such economic growth and prosperity as this country have never seen before!


Not to rain on your parade....but I'll believe it when I see it!
Tares grow with the wheat for a season - your job is to not be a tare
What we do in life echoes an eternity
When it starts raining - its too late to begin building the ark

SEPIUS EXERTUS, SEMPER FIDELIS, FRATERS INFINITAS
MOLON LABE - NON TIMEBO MALA
Jason
I am a nobody!

User avatar
 
Posts: 9542
Joined: Sun Jul 05, 2009 9:34 pm

Re: The Fundamental Law Constitutional Amendment

Postby LoveIsTruth » Wed Mar 03, 2010 4:30 pm

I'm just getting started. :wink:

Check out this:

Honest Money Constitutional Amendment
http://www.ldsfreedomforum.com/viewtopic.php?f=19&t=10942
LoveIsTruth
captain of 1,000

User avatar
 
Posts: 3766
Joined: Fri Feb 26, 2010 9:13 am

Re: The Fundamental Law Constitutional Amendment

Postby blakwatch » Wed Mar 03, 2010 7:49 pm

Just to test your credibility, LIT, -- again, do you know why the phrase "Pursuit of Happiness" was used in the Declaration of Independence, instead of "Property"?
blakwatch
captain of 100
 
Posts: 190
Joined: Mon Feb 25, 2008 7:15 am

Re: The Fundamental Law Constitutional Amendment

Postby LoveIsTruth » Wed Mar 03, 2010 11:09 pm

I think they did not want to convey an idea that you are entitled to other people's property.

And I still think, that it would've been better if they mentioned the absolute right to earn and keep private property as the foundation of Liberty.
LoveIsTruth
captain of 1,000

User avatar
 
Posts: 3766
Joined: Fri Feb 26, 2010 9:13 am

Re: The Fundamental Law Constitutional Amendment

Postby blakwatch » Thu Mar 04, 2010 6:56 am

What is the historical basis for your assessment of what the Founders did or did not want to convey?

On this particular subject, we're not talking about what you think would have been better. We're talking about what the Founders were thinking.

What you think and its lack of true grounding is why, like Jason, I won't be holding my breath about whatever it is you're trying to do.

People have made over 11,000 legitimate runs at amending the Constitution.

Twenty seven have stuck.

There is a certain reality to the process that seems to be completely lacking in your reasoning and objective(s).
Last edited by blakwatch on Thu Mar 04, 2010 11:20 am, edited 1 time in total.
blakwatch
captain of 100
 
Posts: 190
Joined: Mon Feb 25, 2008 7:15 am

Re: The Fundamental Law Constitutional Amendment

Postby LoveIsTruth » Thu Mar 04, 2010 10:24 am

blakwatch wrote:On this particular subject, we're not talking about what you think would have been better.
I am actually talking about what I think would have been better. Let not this shock you. Founders were good people like us. (If you didn't know that.) :)

"What you think and its lack of true grounding"
I am trying to ground my reasoning in eternal principles, of which Private Property is one.
You yourself have said earlier: "I don't have any problem with the concepts, definitions or examples you have given of private property..."
If you think I am wrong, please prove it.

"People have made over 11,000 legitimate runs at amending the Constitution. Twenty seven have stuck."
True that, but among those that "stuck" were 16th and 17th as well as other legislative crimes. What "stuck" was usualy forced upon the people by the banksters. So it is not a true test of virtue.

There is a certain reality to the process that seems to be completely lacking in your reasoning and objective(s).
The reality you are referring to is political corruption. I am pleased to be lacking in that. My objective is only to restore liberty in this land. So help me God.

Cheers :)
LoveIsTruth
captain of 1,000

User avatar
 
Posts: 3766
Joined: Fri Feb 26, 2010 9:13 am

Re: The Fundamental Law Constitutional Amendment

Postby Jason » Thu Mar 04, 2010 10:56 am

LoveIsTruth wrote:The reality you are referring to is political corruption. I am pleased to be lacking in that. My objective is only to restore liberty in this land. So help me God.

Cheers :)


How serious are you? The price is blood!

Bad guys don't walk away from power without a fight....and it always comes down to force....by the sword.

For example the lady Clinton tried to rape in the oval office....who's husband ironically committed suicide just a couple hours later. Then when the story came out from the Monica Lewinski incident (leaked to draw attention away from Chinese mafia/communist campaign contributions) she was smeared, threatened - both personally and take her adopted child away from her.

Near the end of the flick - http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid ... =en&dur=3#

Excerpts from MSM coverage -

Kathleen Willey (WH) - sexual assault, intimidations, threats

Associated Press 5/4/99 Pete Yost "...Kathleen Willey testified in court Tuesday that she confided to her friend, Julie Hiatt Steele, about President Clinton's ``very forceful'' sexual advance in the White House. But in a new disclosure, Mrs. Willey said she was so upset by the events of that day in 1993, the same day her husband committed suicide, that Ms. Steele had to remind her later of their conversation on the alleged sexual advance by the president. It's a crucial point in the obstruction trial of Ms. Steele, who is charged with lying to Kenneth Starr's investigators when she denied that Mrs. Willey had told her about the incident hours after it allegedly happened. Ms. Steele says Mrs. Willey first told her about the experience with Clinton in 1997, asking her to lie about it to a Newsweek reporter. Earlier Tuesday, a friend who worked with her in the White House social office testified that Mrs. Willey confided Clinton's alleged sexual advance to her shortly after it happened. In a barely audible voice, Ruthie Eisen said that, according to Mrs. Willey's account, the president ``kissed her and hugged her'' and ``touched her chest.'' ``She said that the president had gotten aroused and said he had wanted to do that for a long time or wanted to do that since he saw her,'' Ms. Eisen said. Ms. Eisen said Mrs. Willey told her she was ``caught offguard'' by the president's advance. Ms. Eisen said she assumed Mrs. Willey revealed the incident in confidence. Ms. Eisen said she didn't tell anyone about it until she was questioned by Starr's investigators. Asked if Mrs. Willey ever asked her to lie or fabricate anything, Ms. Eisen replied, ``absolutely not.'' Linda Tripp is the only other White House staffer to have said that Mrs. Willey confided the alleged incident...."


Associated Press 5/12/99 Pete Yost "...After her initial lie detector test was inconclusive, a second FBI test found Kathleen Willey was truthful when she alleged that President Clinton made a sexual advance, according to newly released documents. A federal judge unsealed the 1998 lie detector results this week after news organizations, including The Associated Press, went to court to challenge the secrecy surrounding them. ....In the FBI report released by U.S. District Judge Claude Hilton, a third set of polygraph questions is blacked out because of an "ongoing investigation'' by Starr's office, the judge states in a court order. In that third series of questions, Mrs. Willey was also found to be "truthful,'' the FBI report states. ...."

NewsMax.com 5/12/99 "...Breaking a 14 month media silence about the events surrounding her sexual assault by President Clinton, on Tuesday Kathleen Willey linked two friends of the president to separate episodes of witness intimidation. Appearing on CNBC's "Hardball" with Chris Matthews, Willey alleged that former Commerce Secretary and longtime Clinton operative Mickey Kantor had threatened her friend Julie Hiatt Steele to get her to change her story. Willey said that she was persuaded to go public with her own account in March 1998 only when producers for CBS's "60 Minutes" unearthed Kantor's involvement and shared the information with her: "They told me that my friend Julie Steele had been approached by a very high ranking member of the Clinton administration questioning her about the conditions of the adoption of her child.....I decided that no woman, no person, no mother should be threatened with her child. And that was the reason I did "60 Minutes". Willey said that "60 Minutes" producers specifically identified the administration official to her as Kantor. She told Matthews that "60 Minutes" had promised to expose the cover-up as part of the same episode where she described her assault by Clinton but instead CBS decided to withold the Kantor bombshell...."

NewsMax.com 5/12/99 "...For the last year Steele has publicly claimed that it was the Office of Independent Counsel that had investigated her son's adoption to pressure her to lie. But in sworn testimony during the April trial of Susan McDougal on contempt and obstruction charges, Steele admitted that the OIC had done no such thing. ..."

NewsMax.com 5/12/99 "...In another shocking exchange, Ms. Willey established a separate White House link to the encounter she had with a jogger who threatened her two days before her January 1998 deposition in the Paula Jones case. Willey told CNBC's Matthews that she was approached at dawn as she walked through her Virginia neighborhood by a total stranger who seemed to know a lot about her personal life: "He asked me, 'Did you ever find your cat?' And I said, 'No, I haven't and we really miss him.' Then he said, 'Did you ever get those tires fixed on your car?' And I said 'No' and that's when the hair started standing up on the back of my neck." Willey said the stranger identified her pet by name, saying, "That cat, he was a nice cat. Bullseye was his name, wasn't it?" Willey added, "He asked me about my children by name. He said, 'How are your children, Shannon and Patrick?' It was a very insidious thing and it was meant to scare me." The former White House volunteer said she was able to identify the stranger as someone "associated with" President Clinton after being shown photos by investigators. She would not publicly reveal her tormentor's name but Matthews' questions narrowed the field down to three people:... MATTHEWS: Is it someone in the President's family of friends? Is it somebody related to Strobe Talbott? Is it a Shearer? WILLEY: I can't say. I've been asked not to by the Office of Independent Counsel because they are investigating this. Derek, Cody and Brooke Shearer are longtime friends of the Clintons who have been linked in published reports to IGI, the White House's regular private detective agency run by Terry Lenzner. Brooke Shearer is married to Deputy Secretary of State Strobe Talbott...."


Another brief example -

14 Year Old

NewsMax.Com 3/10/99 Carl Limbacher "…Of all the Jane Doe leads described to NewsMax.com, one was more shocking than all the others put together. And because of its sensitive nature, Rick Lambert stressed that he had but one witness account to substantiate the story. Still, it was the case that troubled him the most. This Jane Doe was just 14 years old at the time of her Clinton encounter. And, according to the witness in whom she confided years later, she had attended a 1984 party co-hosted by Arkansas bond daddy Dan Lasater and Clinton's brother Roger. Both would later serve jail time on drug charges. As told to Lambert, the girl was rendered unconscious by a deliberate overdose. And when she came to she was half-naked, with the governor of the state of Arkansas on top of her. Beyond that single sourced account, the evidence to back up the story is circumstantial. Lasater was, for instance, convicted of "social distribution," based on allegations he used the lure of free cocaine to get wayward young women to entertain his male party guests. Other corroboration comes from Roger Clinton's then-landlady, Jane Parks, who has spoken on the record about the wild parties Roger threw attended by his older brother, the governor. Parks says marijuana and cocaine were the intoxicants of choice and the women came and went at all hours of the day and night. Sometimes the female company was "surprisingly young," according to Parks. Her office shared a wall with Roger's apartment and she was able to hear as well as see quite a lot. In 1997 Parks told the London Telegraph's Ambrose Evans-Pritchard that she could clearly distinguish Gov. Clinton's voice through the ventilation duct when, on at least two occasions, he had sex with the party girls. Parks' assistant told Evans-Pritchard she thought that some of Roger's female guests were perilously close to underage, "probably 17, 18 years old." According to Lambert, the young assault victim fled Arkansas when Gov. Clinton won the 1992 Democratic presidential nomination. Lambert and several reporters traced the girl, now a woman in her late 20s, to California. But she remained elusive till the end…."

http://www.alamo-girl.com/0262.htm

Lest you think it just Clinton....plenty of Bush stories out there....about all of the Bush men.

http://www.opednews.com/thoreau1103bush ... uicide.htm

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aCr4qLtb ... r_embedded

To sum it up.....IF things can change....it will take blood and force. These guys will not go quietly to the wayside. Call a spade a spade.
Tares grow with the wheat for a season - your job is to not be a tare
What we do in life echoes an eternity
When it starts raining - its too late to begin building the ark

SEPIUS EXERTUS, SEMPER FIDELIS, FRATERS INFINITAS
MOLON LABE - NON TIMEBO MALA
Jason
I am a nobody!

User avatar
 
Posts: 9542
Joined: Sun Jul 05, 2009 9:34 pm

Re: The Fundamental Law Constitutional Amendment

Postby LoveIsTruth » Fri Mar 05, 2010 12:42 pm

There are many ways to effect things for the better. Constitutional improvements is one of them. Teaching the true principles of liberty is a key. Ignorant people cannot remain free.

And ultimately, people are the last check on the government, and the last bulwark of freedom. Hence, the necessity of well informed juries, and well armed populations.
Thank God for Second Amendment!

Cheers. :)
LoveIsTruth
captain of 1,000

User avatar
 
Posts: 3766
Joined: Fri Feb 26, 2010 9:13 am

Re: The Fundamental Law Constitutional Amendment

Postby LoveIsTruth » Fri Jul 01, 2011 8:16 am

Added these two lines:

"Public property is defined as property to which all citizens have equal claim of ownership.

A specific public property shall be managed by the lowest level of government that can possibly do so. "
LoveIsTruth
captain of 1,000

User avatar
 
Posts: 3766
Joined: Fri Feb 26, 2010 9:13 am

Re: The Fundamental Law Constitutional Amendment

Postby Samuel the Lamanite » Sat Jul 02, 2011 2:22 pm

Why worry about the "threats" to the Constitution? This is simply diverting us from what is really important. Since the death of ETB, the GAs have spoken very little about the dangers to Constitutional government so everything MUST be under control. Every faithful Saint should accept this and stop worrying.
Samuel the Lamanite
captain of 1,000
 
Posts: 2832
Joined: Tue May 24, 2011 12:58 pm

Re: The Fundamental Law Constitutional Amendment

Postby wiser2 » Sun Jul 03, 2011 8:54 am

I believe this proposal would have us relearning many of the lessons of the past. Certainly the intent is admirable, but the problem is that it lacks the checks and balances that would provide necessary infrastructure to function. One of the problems is defining "property" or "private". The other problem is what if everyone just decides not to enforce it? I believe a workable solution will require a carefully crafted government solution where no one has much power, but all bodies are in tension against each other, and all have a vested interest to do their part to enhance liberty and justice. The US Constitution did this to some extent, yet I believe has failed. The failure is in motivating to follow the Bill of Rights, for example. No one seems to be interested in enforcing or following what is written. This proposal makes that problem worse, not better. For example, could you imagine if your neighbor on drugs decides to be that "lowest" level of government? I am dealing with a capricious HOA right now, and it does not make things better, even though it is one of the lowest levels of government.

Likely, pushing much to change the constitution today will get it changed in a harmful way, not a good way.

I believe one of the better options we have today is to actively promote our supreme law rather than changing it. For example, we can go after those who would threaten the life and liberty of the unborn babies and immigrants, etc., because the Bill of Rights, the 14th amendment, and the Declaration of Independence already make that threat illegal. And, if current law is not helpful in getting actual results, why would changing the words make a difference?
wiser2
captain of 10
 
Posts: 34
Joined: Fri May 20, 2011 9:59 pm

Re: The Fundamental Law Constitutional Amendment

Postby LoveIsTruth » Sun Jul 03, 2011 12:50 pm

Samuel the Lamanite wrote:Why worry about the "threats" to the Constitution? This is simply diverting us from what is really important. Since the death of ETB, the GAs have spoken very little about the dangers to Constitutional government so everything MUST be under control. Every faithful Saint should accept this and stop worrying.
That is not sound logic. All the problems that Ezra Taft Benson spoke about are here and stronger than ever. Therefore to assume that all is well in Zion and with the Constitution is a deadly mistake. General Authorities are not speaking about it because they have already spoken on the subject, and it is wisdom to let the saints learn from their words and act without being commanded in all things. (http://lds.org/scriptures/dc-testament/ ... ang=eng#25)
LoveIsTruth
captain of 1,000

User avatar
 
Posts: 3766
Joined: Fri Feb 26, 2010 9:13 am

Re: The Fundamental Law Constitutional Amendment

Postby Amore Vero » Sun Jul 03, 2011 1:02 pm

LoveIsTruth wrote: General Authorities are not speaking about it because they have already spoken on the subject,



What if that's 'not' the reason they are not speaking about it anymore?
Amore Vero
captain of 100
 
Posts: 935
Joined: Wed Feb 27, 2008 10:12 am

Next

Return to Principles of Liberty

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: CWilson, Google Adsense [Bot] and 8 guests